It would be more accurate to say: "We have evidence that religion and science came into conflict over time." No assumptions are needed.
-
@PhilosophyExp methods MIGHT have produced complementary or mutually reinforcing results. But of course, it didn't turn out that way! /3
@Metamagician that their "results" were consistent with each other. But yes, it is a semantic point. :)
-
-
@PhilosophyExp Mmm, but what if science had confirmed Noah's flood, found the earth is 6000 years old, etc., giving the impression that /1Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@PhilosophyExp prophets and so on really were getting information from epistemically superior beings? If it had gone like that, I'd say /2Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@PhilosophyExp that their methods were complementary. Part of the prob is that religion was not really using such methods - so it seems! /3 -
@Metamagician Sorry, bit hopeless coz of twitter limitation. Good to see you arguing "accommodationist" postion, though. ;) -
@PhilosophyExp lol, I hope that's not what I'm doing. I actually think it's very telling against religion that science didn't confirm it. /1
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.